Benefits of wearing a helmet

[david k]

not avoided anything, im talking about cycle helmets as this a cycle forum and cycle helmet thread. Therefore if a cycle helmet saved 1 life then they have been of value imo.

i can only repeat (sorry everyone for having to read repetition) the likelihood case for walking and cycling. Again likelihood and potential harm are the 2 factors considered, if cycling i consider these higher risk than walking (and backed up by data on here), therefore i consider it worthy of a helmet when cycling but not walking. If the wearing of a helmet when cycling saves one life it will have been worth it. As this is less likely when walking its too insignificant to consider imo

 

[david k]

do you think it is wrong to wear a helmet when cycling but not walking?

 

[cycleruk]

All these threads and reply's for helmet safety, there is over 6 billion people on this planet and the only opinion you can really trust is yours, if you wish to wear a helmet, then fair play, if you don't, then fair play to that too, there is no law saying you need to wear a helmet so does it really mater if you wear a helmet or not, at the end of the day all that maters is that you enjoy cycling and how you do that is up to you, no one else!!

.

 

[Bicycle]

All these threads and reply's for helmet safety, there is over 6 billion people on this planet and the only opinion you can really trust is yours, if you wish to wear a helmet, then fair play, if you don't, then fair play to that too, there is no law saying you need to wear a helmet so does it really mater if you wear a helmet or not, at the end of the day all that maters is that you enjoy cycling and how you do that is up to you, no one else!!

.

How dare you take a reasonable and conciliatory line in this debate!!

I think the chief protagonists in this thread are supplying a valuable public service through their open and inclusive debating style and are as open to the views of others as we are.

It's these antagonistic calls for an acceptance of the views of others that completely drain this forum of its entertainment value.

I have read several academic studies proving that accepting the views of others is a significant cause of road fatalities among cyclists.

 

[albion]

I once saw a report where injuries had gone up 10% since helmets became compulsory whilst cycle usage had also gone down.
I wondered if a) helmets made younger cyclists feel overconfidentb) drivers now considered cyclists as being like motorcyclists and failed to adjust accordingly. Of course all studies have blips.

 

[ufkacbln]

not avoided anything, im talking about cycle helmets as this a cycle forum and cycle helmet thread. Therefore if a cycle helmet saved 1 life then they have been of value imo.

You have again shifted the goalposts, and your statement - then stuck your ingers in your ears and refused to discuss this.

You did not mention risk, likelihood or chance - you stated unequivocally that if a single life was saved then helmets should be worn.

Yet now we are saying that only cyclists are worth saving?

Still I didn't expect any better.




Are we back in the area where other group's head injuries are acceptable, hurt less, or affect the families less.

i can only repeat (sorry everyone for having to read repetition) the likelihood case for walking and cycling. Again likelihood and potential harm are the 2 factors considered, if cycling i consider these higher risk than walking (and backed up by data on here), therefore i consider it worthy of a helmet when cycling but not walking. If the wearing of a helmet when cycling saves one life it will have been worth it. As this is less likely when walking its too insignificant to consider imo

So you expect the right to make your own choice, yet wish to deny that choice when it comes to cycle helmets?

do you think it is wrong to wear a helmet when cycling but not walking?

This is the elephant in the room isn't it?

Your original (and now changed) claim that if only one life was saved then helmets should be worn is the issue?

Why do you feel pedestrian head injuries aren't worth preventing?

 

[lukesdad]

still avoiding.....

Your statement was that if helmets saved a single life they should be worn.


Why are you now selecting which lives?

If that single life is a drunk, a pedestrian or a toddler and it could be saved by wearing a helmet - why shouldn't it?

Why play God and select which lives are saved?

The answer is simple, for the same reasons I stated earlier about pedestrian accidents. These groups are not responsible for their own actions so they probably would forget to put the damned things on. Pretty pointless wouldn t you say ?

 

[steve52]

mine saved me from a bump on the head when i fell off

 

[Norm]

...you stated unequivocally that if a single life was saved then helmets should be worn.

Not quite.

The actual words used were "then they are worth wearing".

The difference between "worth wearing" and "should be worn" might be small, but I think it's important, especially when emotions are up and people may be posting in haste without thinking of some of the subtle nuances which may come out from subsequent lengthy analysis of their words.

 

[tigger]

especially when emotions are up and people may be posting in haste without thinking of some of the subtle nuances which may come out from subsequent lengthy analysis of their words.

Forums eh... the best er forum for advice and debates

 

[cycleruk]

How dare you take a reasonable and conciliatory line in this debate!!

I think the chief protagonists in this thread are supplying a valuable public service through their open and inclusive debating style and are as open to the views of others as we are.

It's these antagonistic calls for an acceptance of the views of others that completely drain this forum of its entertainment value.

I have read several academic studies proving that accepting the views of others is a significant cause of road fatalities among cyclists.

Sorry. i meant no harm when i posted this but arguing aint going to sort any thing so..... what is better, helmet or no helmet, theres only one way to find out!!!

 

[Red Light]

for clarity, i think no evidence should be disregarded without careful consideration, from a medical expert or other. It has been said on here that medical experts are not to be listened too in respect of cycle helmets, i disagree, however the evidence may or may not be as relevant as other evidence, i suppose its horses for courses, all data is there to be considered and absorbed before forming an opinion.

That's why you use the scientific literature where they explain what they did, how they did it, the results they got and the conclusions they draw so you can assess their evidence and its validity.

So you can look at the paper that really set this all off with claims that helmets saved 85/88% of head injuries and find out that they compared inner city kids riding on the roads mainly without helmets with helmeted suburban kids riding mainly in parks with their parents and then attribute the difference in head injuries exclusively to the helmet wearing. Then you can take the public datasets they used and find that if they had bothered to do the calculation by their methodology they would have found that helmets "prevent" 75% of leg injuries.

You can then read the research on what happened in Australia and New Zealand on what happened when mandatory helmet laws were introduced and helmet wearing rates doubled overnight. And there are a few papers announcing that head injuries fell as a result. You can then find other papers that looked at cycling numbers as well and found they fell by a greater percentage than the head injuries so that the risk per individual went up.

But it seems you have very little interest in doing that reading and evaluation, preferring to disregard it all in favour of your own home grown philosophy while mocking people for having bothered to do the reading and summarise and reference it here.

 

[lukesdad]

That's why you use the scientific literature where they explain what they did, how they did it, the results they got and the conclusions they draw so you can assess their evidence and its validity.

So you can look at the paper that really set this all off with claims that helmets saved 85/88% of head injuries and find out that they compared inner city kids riding on the roads mainly without helmets with helmeted suburban kids riding mainly in parks with their parents and then attribute the difference in head injuries exclusively to the helmet wearing. Then you can take the public datasets they used and find that if they had bothered to do the calculation by their methodology they would have found that helmets "prevent" 75% of leg injuries.

You can then read the research on what happened in Australia and New Zealand on what happened when mandatory helmet laws were introduced and helmet wearing rates doubled overnight. And there are a few papers announcing that head injuries fell as a result. You can then find other papers that looked at cycling numbers as well and found they fell by a greater percentage than the head injuries so that the risk per individual went up.

But it seems you have very little interest in doing that reading and evaluation, preferring to disregard it all in favour of your own home grown philosophy while mocking people for having bothered to do the reading and summarise and reference it here.

The problem with you is you pick and choose which papers you seem to want to validate. According to your views and agenda. When they are picked to pieces and fall apart you just bury your head in the sand.

 

[Red Light]

Does the so called " evidence " of head injuries between cyclists and pedestrians take into account relative ages involved by any chance ?

You can take it into account - the data is there to do it if you wish. There are more trips and falls in the elderly pedestrians than elderly cycling accidents but not sufficiently so to change the conclusion.

But what are you suggesting? Mandatory helmets for under-16 cyclists and over-60 pedestrians?

It all comes down to the reductio fallacy you are attempting to use that eventually works its way down to the national statistics do not differentiate riding a bike on the particular road I use at the particular times I ride and for people exactly like me in age, gender, experience and cycling style SO they do not apply to me and I can ignore them.

 

[Red Light]

The problem with you is you pick and choose which papers you seem to want to validate. According to your views and agenda. When they are picked to pieces and fall apart you just bury your head in the sand.

I've read them on both sides but there is not much point writing about all the papers that have results that are suspect. I pick out the ones where the results look reasonably sound. And those generally are not supportive of helmets just as papers on homeopathy are not supportive of anything beyond placebo effect. That tends to happen in science although not exclusively - see the helicobacter pylori story for an example where a lone scientist overturned the whole subject area.

Of course you and david k and angelfishsolo are perfectly welcome to put forward good research that shows that helmets work for discussion and you can critique the methodologies and results in the papers I put forward. But none of you are doing that and david k in particular doesn't even know what papers are out there because he has faith he is right.

So come on lukesdad, tell us what you think is the one best paper for demonstrating helmets work, give us the reference and why you think its good and lets discuss it in the time honoured fashion of scientific debate.